Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Traub Lieberman Partner and Firm Co-Chair Lisa L. Shrewsberry Named Top 25: 2025 Westchester County Super Lawyers®

January 13, 2026 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Partner and Firm Co-Chair Lisa L. Shrewsberry has been named to the Top 25: 2025 Westchester County Super Lawyers Top List. This is the eighth year that Lisa has been on the Top 25 list for Westchester County Super Lawyers. Lisa has also been selected to the New York – Metro Super Lawyers list since 2008. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Thank You for Year 19 of Legal Elite

January 05, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Thank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 19th consecutive year. The 19 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my over 15 years as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 15 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 15 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers who were elected along with me, see the 2025 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers

May 05, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the tenth straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2026. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. Your confidence in my work is very gratifying. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2026. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron

February 02, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Background In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Applicability of Florida’s Building Code Is a Question of Law

November 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The application of Florida’s Building Code is a question of law for the court. It’s NOT a question for a witness to determine. In a recent personal injury dispute dealing with the tripping and falling on a public sidewalk, a key issue included the application of Florida’s Building Code on a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants where a major portion of the ruling was based on the inapplicability of Florida’s Building Code to the public sidewalk. Even though the plaintiff had an expert witness that opined that the Florida Building Code did apply, the trial court rejected this opinion in determining the Code did not apply:

Whether the Florida Building Code is applicable to this case ultimately is a question of law belonging to the court, not the witness. See Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Ag., Inc., 645 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A. Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law. It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code . . . .” (citations omitted)). As such, it was the responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the building code applies to the sidewalk in this case and whether the code provided evidence of negligence. See Martin v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., No. 6:15-cv-1364-ORL-41KRS, 2017 WL 2928154, at *4 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017) (“Accordingly, [the expert] may not testify as to the applicability or inapplicability of any provision of the Florida Building Code. This Court will determine what provisions, if any, are applicable to the facts of this case.”).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Soot Constitutes Property Damage

March 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Viability of Takings Claims Under Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Act

November 09, 2025 — Ed J. Hermes, Jeremy J. Stewart, Benjamin J. Mills & Emily Statham - Snell & Wilmer
In a decision cementing a split with the Tenth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit recently held that property owners’ unclaimed property is not taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment where it is held in trust by the State. See Garza v. Woods, No. 24-1064, 2025 WL 2435221 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims because sovereign immunity barred suit against the Arizona Department of Revenue (“Department”). See Garza v. Woods, No. CV-22-01310-PHX-JJT, 2023 WL 5608414 (D. Ariz. Aug. 30, 2023). The Ninth Circuit reversed this portion of the district court decision and allowed plaintiffs’ takings and due process claims because they plausibly alleged that the Department unconstitutionally seized their property under Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Law (“UPA”). Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Law Arizona’s UPA presumes that certain types of property have been abandoned if unclaimed within a statutory period. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 44-302(A). Holders of presumably abandoned property must send a written notice to the apparent owner, provide a report to the Department, and ultimately deliver the unclaimed property to the Department. Id. 44-302(E), 44-308(A). Though the Department need not provide actual notice to apparent owners that it is in possession of their property, the UPA requires the Department to operate a website that lists the unclaimed property in its possession. See id. 44-309 (A), 44-309(B). The UPA further requires the Department to deposit all unclaimed money in the state’s general fund. Id. 44-313(A). Reprinted courtesy of Ed J. Hermes, Snell & Wilmer, Jeremy J. Stewart, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Mills, Snell & Wilmer and Emily Statham, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Hermes may be contacted at ehermes@swlaw.com Mr. Stewart may be contacted at jjstewart@swlaw.com Mr. Mills may be contacted at bemills@swlaw.com Ms. Statham may be contacted at estatham@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Insured’s Breach of Contract Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss, but Bad Faith Claim Does Not

November 21, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s breach of contract claim, but granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice the bad faith claim. Terrazas v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173920 (D. Colo. Sept 5, 2025). The plaintiff, Alejandro Garcia-Terrazas, had a policy issued by State Farm. The policy covered the abrupt and accidental discharge or overflow of water. Terrazas noticed a water discharge or overflow in the kitchen. The water caused damage to the floors, cabinets, and other items in the kitchen. A claim was filed with State Farm. State Farm investigated but refused to pay the full value of the claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES